Talk:Boeing 747

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Boeing 747 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 9, 2008.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
August 12, 2006 Peer review Reviewed
October 28, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
December 31, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article
WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the aircraft project.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7 (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

primary users?[edit]

Obviously British Airways has the biggest 747 fleet but I am curious what qualifies KLM, United Airlines and Lufthansa as "primary users"? The 747 is way more common in asia and many asian airlines have a much bigger 747 fleet then they have. (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Normal practice for airliners that are still in service is to list them by the size of the current fleet, when the type is retired they will be changed to the more significant or largest fleet during the types life. A bit of original research indicates this is the current fleet size list:
  • British Airways 55
  • Atlas Air 36
  • Qantas 25
  • United 24
  • Lufthansa 22
  • KLM 22
  • Cathay Pacific 18

So really Atlas Air and Qantas should be added instead of Lufthansa and KLM. MilborneOne (talk) 17:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Lufthansa is the only two-times 747 launch customer (-200F and -8i) and thus sure worth mentioning. (talk) 08:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I would also like to add an updated version of this list:

British Airways: 55

Atlas Air: 39

Lufthansa: 36

United: 23

KLM: 22

Qantas: 12

Cathay Pacific: 3

The list of "Primary Users" really should be the following:

British Airways

Atlas Air



Just because Lufthansa was the launch customer for the -200 freighter and the -8 intercontinental doesn't mean they have the second most, which is how the primary users should be listed. Rufusmi (talk) 02:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

"Primary" can also be defined by importance, and Lufthansa´s contribution and involvement to its developement from the beginnings in the 60ies (ask Joe Sutter himself) to evolvement into the -400 in the 80ies (they were the most vocal airline to demand a two-man flightdeck) and finally into the -8i is outstanding and incomparable to any other airline. (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

"standard-length runways"[edit]

What does "standard-length runways" mean? Is that an official term? Is there truly a standard somewhere or is the term "standard" being used improperly? If there is a precise specification of "standard-length runways" then what is that?

For example, the VC-25 is the military equivalent. The current aircraft usually used as Air Force One is a VC-25. The Van Nuys Airport in southern California has a runway that is 8,000 feet. I do not know how to determine if Air Force One could land at (and take off from) Van Nuys Airport. It would help to have a precise specification of what a 747 requires.

Sam Tomato (talk) 18:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Not all 747s are the same, they have different weights which change the runway requirements as well as the actual load on the day, any 747 figures are unlikely to apply to the VC-25s, does Boeing VC-25 mention runway length? MilborneOne (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Aviation Project[edit]

I was thinking about the detailed information on this page and I'm thinking that something like this should be done with the military aviation forums. (talk) 00:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Huh? What detailed information on which page? This article or the talk page? What "military aviation forums" are you referring too? WP is not a forum, and has nothing to do with forums on other sites. So what exactly are you even suggesting here? - BilCat (talk) 03:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Date fromat[edit]

Correct me if i am wrong, but i believe the concensus is that dates for aviation articles should be , with the exception of US MILITARY articles.--Petebutt (talk) 08:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

No, M-D-Y date format is used here because this is a US product and not military-related. The established date format should not be changed without good reason. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Cargo containers[edit]

Can anyone point me to any image of a 747F with cargo containers loaded? A photo or diagram would be fine. I want to show something in the Boeing RC-1 article, but can't find a thing. Everything I can find is pallets. Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I have not run across any. But there are container images at Unit load device, such as the one with containers in an A300 fuselage section that could be of general help. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Boeing 747 already being replaced[edit]

The Boeing y3 is not the one to replace the 747. The Boeing 787 is the airliner that is now replacing the 747 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Unlikely the 787 is a smaller and a replacement for the 767. MilborneOne (talk) 12:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

747 AAC dead link update[edit]

I found a page that appears to be the correct link for #176 ″"The Parasite Fighters". VectorSite, December 2009.″ If someone can verify then it should be updated. I did not update it yet as I was not sure and this is my first wikipedia post.

BenjaminJMeyer (talk) 11:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The link and info in cite have been updated. Thanks for the notice. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

New source from the Economist[edit]

WhisperToMe (talk) 11:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Redirect of Jumbo jet[edit]

  • Hi, I wanted to direct the attention of those who might have some input or better arguments than I to the discussion on the Talk:Jumbo jet redirect. There are several editors who feel strongly that jumbo jet primarily refers to all wide body aircraft, and do not support directing the term jumbo jet to either this page Boeing 747 or making it the disambiguation page which lists both the specific historical nickname for the 747, it's broader usage for wide body aircraft, and a few other "jumbo jet" named items. I am a lone voice, and I thought editors here might have an inherent interest. Marcinjeske (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

TWA Flight 800[edit]

Sadly this was probably shot down by the US navy. Hence the complete lack of urgency in implementing a 'fix'. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I hate to see the plane cop the blame for something that wasn't its fault. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

TWA Flight 800 already covers such theories. Wikipedia talk pages are meant to be for improving articles, not as discussion forums. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Air Force One[edit]

Shouldn't it be listed some where that the new Air Force One will be a 747-8?--Airplane Maniac (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The selection is covered at Boeing 747-8, Boeing VC-25 and Air Force One already. However, there's been no aircraft order with this yet. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
What do you mean by "there's been no aircraft order with this yet."--AM (I would LOVE to talk!) 18:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
They have not actually signed anything all they have said is they have decided to order it in the future or to quote "This decision is not a contract award to procure 747-8 aircraft,' said Col. Amy McCain, the Presidential Aircraft Recapitalization (PAR) program manager. 'We still need to finalize the overall acquisition strategy and conduct risk-reduction activities with Boeing to inform the engineering and manufacturing development contract negotiations that will define the capabilities and cost.' " MilborneOne (talk) 19:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Ok. I still think it should be mentioned though... Thoughts?--AM (I would LOVE to talk!) 19:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
It is mentioned in Boeing 747-8, Boeing VC-25 and Air Force One so even if ordered is not really notable here, we only mention the current VC-25s Air Force in the variants section so I dont see why we should mention the proposed buy. MilborneOne (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 37 external links on Boeing 747. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Incorporate Template:RP?[edit]

With all of the repeated citations, is there any objection to incorporating Template:RP into this article? It will make the number of footnotes much smaller while retaining all of the information. Scotteaton92 (talk) 20:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Not than many repeated citations and adding rp doesnt actually reduce the number and probably introduces more clutter in the article, probably best to leave alone. MilborneOne (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
RP does reduce the number of sources in the reference list by consolidating references to different pages of a single book into one line (E.G. there are 11 citation lines to Irving 1994 right now that would be reduced to 1 citation line.) I still think it is worth changing. Scotteaton92 (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Use of RP will make virtually no difference to the number of citations in the article - most are single use calls of cite web, while it makes it harder to follow a reference to the source and harder to edit based on your changes to the King Air article, where you hid references away as List defined references.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I feel that it makes it easier to follow a reference to the source. The mouseover of the note shows the entire citation, rather than just a name and year. I also feel that list defined references are not difficult to edit. If the references are in a list sorted in some manner (I chose to sort alphabetically by author) it is easier to find the definition of the reference than if it is in some place (possibly not the first instance) in the body. Adding additional citations is also easy when using the named reference tool in the editing window. Scotteaton92 (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The rp template only applies to references with pages, such as books and magazines. The template does not apply to web articles/pages of a single page. Almost all the repeated references in this article are the single-page web articles. The book and magazine sources use shortened footnotes, which can be linked together if needed. There little use for this template in this article and not much benefit. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the rp template only applies to references with pages. I did a count, and found that if the rp template were used here, there would be 48 fewer items (48 unique lines and 56 instances) in the reference list. I think that this is a substantial improvement, as it would reduce a significant portion of clutter in the references. I would not say that there is "little use for this template in this article and not much benefit." Scotteaton92 (talk) 03:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Boeing 747. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

need pics of 747s[edit]

Email to Any pics of 747 airplanes please :) Cinderella7321 (talk) 01:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Boeing considering ending 747 production[edit]

Numerous sources (WSJ, CNN, USA Today) have reported Boeing's regulatory filing stating that 747 production could be terminated based on insufficient demand. Should this new event be added to the "Development" section? Helmut von Moltke (talk) 04:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Not here yet. The statement have only says Boring may end production in the near future. Wikipedia is not a news service. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
But wouldn't you say that Boeing even considering a complete halt to production of the 747 is a somewhat major development in its aviation career? Helmut von Moltke (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
I concur with Fnl that it's too early to mention here yet. When Boeing publicly announces it, then we report it. - BilCat (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
But Boeing has announced it in their own SEC regulatory filing, which clearly notes "lower than expected demand for large commercial passenger and freighter aircraft" and brings up halting 747 production as a possible consequence of "market uncertainty, pricing pressures, and fewer orders than anticipated. Since the source for this news is a company report, I believe that this development merits inclusion in the article.
Per WP:CRYSTAL, "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." I think that this segment exactly describes what we are discussing here, which further supports mentioning Boeing's announcement in the article. Helmut von Moltke (talk) 22:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Queen of the Skies[edit]

"The Boeing 747 is an American wide-body commercial jet airliner and cargo aircraft, often referred to by its original nickname, Jumbo Jet, or Queen of the Skies."

While no one would question that "Jumbo Jet" is a very common nickname, this statement also implies that the nickname "Queen of the Skies" is used "often". I have personally never heard that name used, and I question whether "often" is justified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I concur, "Queen..." is used only in aeronautical journals at my knowledge, whereas "Jumbo" is universal. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)